Comparing Two Leadership Theories: Crisis vs. Situational

Introduction to Leadership and the Two Theories

Leadership is a complex and fulfilling endeavor. Being a good leader, one might argue, is in part an inborn quality — and for this reason, not many individuals possess it, and not many leaders are ultimately successful. There are, however, notable examples of leaders who have changed the world, including figures such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Bill Clinton, who present compelling models of effective leadership.

This paper focuses on two specific theories. The first is drawn from the article "Leadership in a (Permanent) Crisis" by Heifetz, Grashow, and Linsky. The second comes from the theories proposed by Hersey, Blanchard, and Johnson in their book Management of Organizational Behavior. These two sources present differing views on leadership, which are described, compared, and contrasted below.

In their article, Heifetz et al. (2011) describe various tasks that a leader must undertake, arguing that these tasks must always be thoroughly analyzed and effectively executed. The authors begin by stating that leadership exists not only in a constant state of crisis, but also in a perpetual state of uncertainty. Before addressing the deeper substance of their argument, they identify the following core responsibilities of a leader:

Heifetz, Grashow, and Linsky: Leadership in a Permanent Crisis

1. A leader must foster adaptation.
2. A leader must help people develop best practices.
3. A leader must develop better practices to enable the organization to thrive and contribute to its current success.
4. A leader must embrace equilibrium.
5. A leader must keep people in a balanced place between comfort and discomfort.
6. A leader must introduce change, but do so slowly and methodically.
7. A leader must generate leadership in others.
8. A leader must give opportunities to others.
9. A leader must help others adapt.

These tasks are repeatedly emphasized throughout the article as vital responsibilities that a leader must fulfill in order to have a successful and impactful tenure at an organization.

The authors also note that, despite these many responsibilities, a leader must be able to juggle them effectively. Events such as economic crises are not simply rough patches to be endured and moved past. A leader must always be prepared for such challenges, since they will never truly disappear — driven as they are by constantly changing expectations and the urgency that characterizes today's fast-moving business environment, itself a product of technological advancement and near-instantaneous communication.

In light of these pressures, the authors argue that leaders must not "hunker down" or simply press "reset." Instead, they should orient themselves toward the future, as this forward-looking stance is most likely to produce a meaningful and positive impact. Above all, the authors stress adaptation as the quality most likely to help an organization survive in any economic environment.

To illustrate these principles, Heifetz et al. reference three organizational cases: Best Buy, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and Egon Zehnder International. Each of these organizations fostered effective leadership through adaptive responses to their respective challenges: Best Buy adapted to women's growing influence on purchasing decisions; Beth Israel pursued a merger that positioned the hospital to meet new healthcare challenges; and Egon Zehnder developed its leadership capacity to adapt to the rise of online recruiting.

Organizational Examples of Crisis Leadership

The difficult decisions made in each of these cases not only propelled the organizations forward into a new era, but helped them achieve success and sustain growth. These examples serve as concrete evidence that the adaptive leadership principles outlined by Heifetz et al. can produce real organizational results.

Hersey, Blanchard, and Johnson (2007) also recognize the importance of good leadership and acknowledge some of the same qualities discussed above. However, there are significant differences between their theory and that of Heifetz et al.

In their model, Hersey, Blanchard, and Johnson propose that leadership is, above all, situational. Like any situational theory of success, their model holds that leadership must be adapted to different individuals and different tasks. In this basic sense, their theory shares common ground with the one presented by Heifetz et al., as both call for innovation and adaptation to specific circumstances.

Hersey, Blanchard, and Johnson: Situational Leadership Theory

However, Hersey, Blanchard, and Johnson go considerably deeper in prescribing exactly how this adaptation should be carried out. Rather than focusing on broad organizational responses to crisis, they emphasize adjusting leadership style to suit a specific individual and a specific task. Their model identifies four leadership styles: telling, selling, participating, and delegating. These styles are matched against an individual's level of competence and commitment, each rated on a scale from low to high.

For example, if an individual exhibits low competence but high commitment, the appropriate style is "telling." Conversely, if an individual demonstrates both high competence and high commitment — indicating the ability to work independently — the leader should apply a more empowering or delegating style. The authors also address individuals who fall between these poles and who must be encouraged through selling or participating approaches in order to succeed.

This level of individualized detail represents a key distinction from the Heifetz et al. framework. Leadership in this model appears more granular and, arguably, more demanding to execute well — a challenge the authors themselves acknowledge.

Both theories share a fundamental commitment to adaptation as the cornerstone of effective leadership. In this respect, they are aligned: a good leader must be responsive, whether to macroeconomic shifts and organizational crises, as Heifetz et al. argue, or to the varying competence and commitment levels of individual team members, as Hersey, Blanchard, and Johnson contend.

Conclusion

Nobody has ever said leadership is easy, and most people cannot be good leaders — yet those who are employ strategies that earn them respect, help a company grow, and encourage others to grow alongside them. As seen from the two theories examined here, effective leadership involves both the ability to adapt an organization and the wisdom to appreciate, challenge, and incorporate staff members in those adaptations.